In re K.W.

2026 IL App (1st) 250872
                                              No. 1-25-0872
                                     Opinion filed April 21, 2026
                                                                                    Second Division

 ______________________________________________________________________________
                                                 IN THE
                                  APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
                                            FIRST DISTRICT
 ______________________________________________________________________________
 In re K.W., a Minor                                            )   Appeal from the
                                                                )   Circuit Court of
 (The People of the State of Illinois,                          )   Cook County.
                                                                )
           Petitioner-Appellee,                                 )
                                                                )
     v.                                                         )   No. 24 JA 865
                                                                )
 M.W.,                                                          )   Honorable
                                                                )   Jennifer Payne,
           Respondent-Appellant).                               )   Judge, presiding.



           PRESIDING JUSTICE VAN TINE delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.
           Justices McBride and D.B. Walker concurred in the judgment and opinion.

                                            OPINION
¶1        Following an adjudication hearing, the trial court found that respondent M.W. neglected

his son, K.W., due to lack of care and an injurious environment. Following a disposition hearing,

the court found respondent M.W. unable to care for K.W., adjudged the minor a ward of the court,

and entered a permanency goal of returning home within 12 months. Respondent M.W. contends

the trial court’s adjudication and disposition rulings were against the manifest weight of the

evidence. For the following reasons, we affirm.
No. 1-25-0872


¶2                                       I. BACKGROUND

¶3     K.W. was born on December 28, 2014, to respondent M.W. and K.F. He is currently 11

years old. At all relevant times, respondent M.W. was K.W.’s sole custodial parent. The mother

was a party to proceedings in the trial court but is not a party to this appeal.

¶4     On November 21, 2024, the State filed a petition for adjudication of wardship. The State

alleged that respondent M.W. neglected K.W. under section 2-3(1)(a) and (b) of the Juvenile Court

Act of 1987 (the Act) (705 ILCS 405/2-3(1)(a), (b) (West 2024)) because he did not provide K.W.

with adequate care and exposed him to an injurious environment. The State also alleged that

respondent M.W. abused K.W. under section 2-3(2)(ii) and (v) (id. § 2-3(2)(ii), (v)) by creating a

substantial risk of physical injury and inflicting excessive corporal punishment. The State alleged

that on September 25, 2024, K.W. “was observed to have a bruise on his hand and a facial injury.”

K.W. reported that respondent M.W. caused those injuries. Respondent M.W. “refused to seek

timely medical attention for K.W.” In addition, staff at K.W.’s school reported that he required

clinical testing due to his aggressive behavior but that respondent M.W. refused to facilitate such

testing and did not cooperate with Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) personnel.

Respondent M.W. also had two prior indicated reports of “cuts, bruises, welts, abrasions, oral

injuries, and bone fractures.”

¶5     Following a hearing that respondent M.W. did not attend, the trial court granted the DCFS

guardianship administrator temporary custody of K.W. On November 25, 2024, respondent M.W.

moved for a rehearing, explaining that he was not aware of the temporary custody hearing because

he had been “experiencing difficulties with [his] phone.” The trial court granted his motion and




                                                 -2-
No. 1-25-0872


held a new temporary custody hearing on December 3, 2024. The court again granted the DCFS

guardianship administrator temporary custody.

¶6                                   A. Adjudication Hearing

¶7                                    1. Doctor Lakita Reed

¶8     Dr. Lakita Reed testified that she taught special education and English as a second language

at Gillespie Elementary School (Gillespie Elementary) from August 2024 to January 2025. K.W.

started at Gillespie Elementary in second grade but left early in the school year and was

homeschooled thereafter. He reenrolled at Gillespie Elementary in August 2024 to begin fourth

grade. Reed began working at Gillespie Elementary at approximately the same time and interacted

with K.W. daily while supervising his class during breakfast and recess.

¶9     On September 11, 2024, Reed attended a virtual meeting with respondent M.W., the

principal, K.W.’s classroom teacher, and a school case manager. K.W.’s teacher and the principal

arranged the meeting to discuss K.W.’s behavioral issues, which included banging his head against

his desk and walls, swearing loudly, talking to himself, pretending to be different people, and

talking in the third person. K.W. also hit other students, got into fights, and threatened to “rape”

another student’s sister. Reed recommended a clinical evaluation of K.W., but respondent M.W.

refused. He acknowledged that K.W.’s “social skills were lacking” but believed that was because

of homeschooling. Respondent M.W. expressed no concern about K.W.’s self-harming behaviors.

However, he did agree to a safety plan under which he would pick K.W. up from the school office

at the end of the school day.

¶ 10   At approximately 8:10 a.m. on September 25, 2024, Reed noticed that K.W. had a black

eye. K.W. did not have a black eye when Reed saw him the day before. Reed asked K.W. how that


                                               -3-
No. 1-25-0872


injury happened, and K.W. said respondent M.W. hit him. K.W. added that, “when his dad drinks,

he gets mad [and] he has veins that pop out at the beginning—at the top of his head that get really

big. And when he gets real mad, he hits [K.W.], and he hit [K.W.] in the eye.” The next day,

September 26, 2024, K.W. got into a fight with a group of students during recess.

¶ 11   On November 7, 2024, Reed met with respondent M.W. because he wanted the school to

advance K.W. from fourth grade to eighth grade. The assistant principal, K.W.’s classroom

teacher, the school case manager, a social worker, and a psychologist also attended the meeting.

Respondent M.W. believed that K.W.’s behavior was due to a lack of academic challenges and

claimed that K.W. had memorized the entire dictionary. Reed explained that K.W. was not socially

mature enough for eighth grade and again recommended that he undergo a clinical assessment for

his behavioral issues. Respondent M.W. again refused.

¶ 12   On November 18, 2024, Reed asked K.W. to remove his gloves and put them in his locker

before going to class. K.W. initially refused, then removed his gloves and quickly put his hands in

his pockets. Reed saw that one of his hands was “black” and “bruised up, like a dark purple.” Reed

asked K.W. why his hand was black, and he said, “[Y]ou’re trying to take me away from my dad.

I can’t tell you anything. I don’t want to talk to you.”

¶ 13                                    2. Ayleene Woodard

¶ 14   DCFS investigator Ayleene Woodard testified she interviewed K.W. at his school on

September 25, 2024. Woodard explained to K.W. that she worked for DCFS and “had some

allegations of abuse to him and just wanted to make sure that he was safe in his home.” K.W.

responded, “DCFS? You take people’s kids away.” Before Woodard could ask a question, K.W.

said, “No, my dad doesn’t hit me. He never hits me.” Woodard observed “a scratch or an abrasion



                                                 -4-
No. 1-25-0872


to the outside of the [right] eye, toward the cheek bone,” “injuries to the inside of his arm,”

“scratches on the outside of his arm,” and “bruising to his thigh.” However, K.W.’s injuries “did

not look like they just happened.” K.W. acknowledged that he previously told his teacher and the

assistant principal that respondent M.W. caused those injuries but told Woodard “he lied about it”

and denied that respondent M.W. hit him. K.W. told Woodard that a classmate caused the injuries.

¶ 15   Woodard interviewed respondent M.W. the same day. She asked him how K.W. suffered

a black eye, and respondent M.W. said “[h]e never hits his son in the eye.” Woodard asked

respondent M.W. to seek medical treatment for K.W.’s black eye. Respondent M.W. refused,

explaining “that he did not have any money to take [K.W.] to the doctor.” Respondent M.W. also

claimed that K.W. “had been to two doctors, an ER and medical doctor early on in the month of

September,” although he did not explain the reasons for those visits. Woodard also asked

respondent M.W. about an injury to the back of K.W.’s hand. Respondent M.W. said that K.W.

“did that with a TikTok challenge” involving ice and claimed that K.W’s injuries were due to him

“being assaulted by the kids at school.” During this meeting, respondent M.W. expressed his belief

that the school was not adequately challenging K.W. and was retaliating against respondent M.W.

for raising that concern. As of the following day, September 26, 2024, DCFS assessed K.W. to be

safe in respondent M.W.’s custody.

¶ 16   On October 8, 2024, respondent M.W. called Woodard and reported that K.W. suffered

injuries from another student hitting him. Respondent M.W. claimed that K.W.’s teacher ignored

other students hitting him; he also made a vague reference to “metal bats” at the school.

¶ 17   Woodard interviewed K.W. again on November 13, 2024. K.W. stated that he felt safe at

home and that he and respondent M.W. “practice[d] fractions and reading and math” together.



                                               -5-
No. 1-25-0872


¶ 18   On November 18, 2024, Woodard investigated an allegation that K.W. attempted to hide

an injury to his hand by wearing gloves and putting his hands in his pockets. Woodard interviewed

K.W. that day and saw a new injury with “little purple spotting” on the back of his hand. An older

hand injury from September was in the same location but “was kind of grayish.” K.W. explained

that he wore gloves because “he wanted to look cool” and denied that respondent M.W. hit him.

Woodard did not ask K.W. what caused the hand injury because his body language suggested he

did not want to talk to her. Woodard also attempted to interview respondent M.W. that day, but he

refused. DCFS indicated the November 18, 2024, allegation under the category of “cuts, welts,

bruises, abrasions, and oral injuries.”

¶ 19                                      3. Halema Townsend

¶ 20   DCFS public service administrator Halema Townsend testified that she was Woodard’s

supervisor. In September 2024, Townsend advised respondent M.W. to seek medical treatment for

K.W.’s black eye. Respondent M.W. said that K.W. “went to the doctor twice in September

already,” but he refused to provide Townsend with proof of those visits. Respondent M.W. denied

that he caused K.W.’s black eye and claimed that K.W. suffered that injury during a fight at school.

¶ 21   In September or October 2024, Townsend recommended intact family services to

respondent M.W., but he refused to participate. He said he was consulting with an attorney but did

not provide the attorney’s contact information. Respondent M.W. refused to speak with DCFS

personnel.

¶ 22   During an October 31, 2024, follow-up about seeking treatment for K.W.’s black eye,

respondent M.W. told Townsend he lacked health insurance. At Townsend’s recommendation,

respondent M.W. called 911 and took K.W. to the hospital that day.



                                                 -6-
No. 1-25-0872


¶ 23                                   4. Respondent M.W.

¶ 24      Respondent M.W. testified that he had been K.W.’s sole caretaker for approximately five

years. K.W. was 10 years old at the time of the adjudication hearing.

¶ 25      Respondent M.W. testified to a 2021 DCFS investigation regarding a scratch on K.W.’s

arm. During that investigation, respondent M.W. admitted that he spanked K.W. as punishment.

A DCFS investigator explained to respondent M.W. why corporal punishment was inappropriate,

and he stopped using corporal punishment thereafter. Instead, he disciplined K.W. by taking away

privileges like video games and his allowance. Respondent M.W. discussed the 2021 DCFS

investigation with K.W. to “prepare him [for] the things that could happen,” including the

“possibility of him being removed from the home.”

¶ 26      In September 2024, respondent M.W. noticed a “burn-like injury” on the back of K.W.’s

hand. K.W. told respondent M.W. he suffered that injury in August or September 2024 while doing

a “[s]alt and ice” TikTok challenge. Respondent M.W. put antibiotic ointment on K.W.’s hand

injury and explained that he should not imitate behavior he sees on social media. At some point

before October 15, 2024, respondent M.W. took K.W. to a pediatrician for treatment of his hand

injury.

¶ 27      Multiple times in the fall of 2024, K.W. suffered injuries at school due to bullying.

Respondent M.W. testified that K.W. “got jumped on by 15 students, and then again by two other

students.” Respondent M.W. addressed these incidents with school staff during the September 11,

2024, meeting. School staff recommended that K.W. undergo a clinical assessment. Respondent

M.W. refused because he believed that K.W.’s behavior was not the problem; rather, “[t]he

problem was that [he] was being bullied at school.” Respondent M.W. denied that he caused the



                                               -7-
No. 1-25-0872


black eye K.W. suffered in late September 2024. Respondent M.W. claimed that one of K.W.’s

classmates caused that injury.

¶ 28                                        5. Exhibits

¶ 29   Relevant here, the State moved into evidence (1) a summary of indicated DCFS reports

against respondent M.W., (2) photographs of K.W. on September 25, 2024, (3) K.W.’s medical

records, and (4) K.W.’s school records.

¶ 30                                      a. DCFS Records

¶ 31   DCFS records indicate that on October 7, 2021, when K.W. was six years old, school staff

observed a bleeding wound on his left arm. K.W. initially said the wound was from playing

basketball but then said “it was a secret but his father caused the injury when he was giving [K.W.]

a who[o]ping.” DCFS indicated this allegation of abuse against respondent M.W.

¶ 32                                       b. Photographs

¶ 33   Photographs of K.W. that Woodard took on September 25, 2024, depict dark bruising

surrounding K.W.’s right eye, a smaller bruise on the outside corner of his left eye, a pink circular

abrasion on his right kneecap, faint spotting on the back of his right hand, and marks on the inside

and outside of his left forearm.

¶ 34                                    c. Medical Records

¶ 35   University of Chicago Medical Center records indicate that K.W. underwent a DCFS

medical evaluation at Comer Children’s Hospital on October 31, 2024. K.W. reported “being

bullied at school and getting in fights” but felt safe at home. The examining physician found no

injuries or signs of abuse. A social worker documented that respondent M.W. denied physically

abusing K.W. and claimed that one of K.W.’s classmates hit him in the eye on September 6, 2024.


                                                -8-
No. 1-25-0872


K.W. confirmed being bullied by that student. The social worker also documented that Townsend

reported that K.W. had “a h[istory] of physical injuries allegedly caused by [respondent M.W.]”

and told one of his classmates, “I will F*** you until you bleed.” K.W. was discharged to

respondent M.W.’s care the same day. Hospital staff attempted to follow up with respondent M.W.

on November 13, 2024, but he did not answer his phone and had no voicemail available.

¶ 36                                    d. School Records

¶ 37   Gillespie Elementary records include a summary of the September 11, 2024, meeting

between respondent M.W., Reed, and school staff. This summary reflects multiple instances of

K.W.’s misbehavior, including telling another student “he would rape” them, kicking another

student, banging his head against his desk, and telling other students he wanted to fight them. The

summary also reflects that respondent M.W. denied K.W. would instigate fights but acknowledged

he could be “vindictive” and that his social skills were “lacking.” A grade level diagnostic dated

September 11, 2024, reflects that K.W. was below grade level in both math and reading.

¶ 38   Gillespie Elementary disciplinary records reflect that K.W. received detention for fighting

on September 25, 2024. The following day, September 26, a group of students “jumped” him on

the playground until school staff intervened. Staff treated K.W.’s injuries with an ice pack. On

October 2, Reed took away chips K.W. was eating in the hallway. K.W. yelled, “[Y]ou are a stupid

b***,” then told another student, “I will f*** you up” and “started to swing” until Reed pulled him

away. K.W. again received detention for fighting on October 16. On November 20, K.W. told a

kindergartener “that he wanted to enter [him or her] anally just like Diddy with a lot of baby oil.”

When school staff tried to report this incident to respondent M.W., his voicemail was full.




                                               -9-
No. 1-25-0872


¶ 39   School records also include e-mail correspondence between respondent M.W. and K.W.’s

fourth grade teacher Ricarda Sanders during the fall of 2024. On September 13, respondent M.W.

asked Sanders about an incident in which one of K.W.’s classmates punched him in the eye during

recess. Sanders stated she was absent that day and was unaware of the incident. On October 7, 25,

28, 29, and 30, Sanders reported that K.W. was disruptive in class. During the October 7 incident,

K.W. told another student, “I will whoop your a***.” On October 30, respondent M.W. requested

that Sanders give K.W. more challenging homework and schoolwork. On November 1, respondent

M.W. asked Sanders about multiple students assaulting K.W. that morning and requested that she

keep students who wanted to harm K.W. away from him. On November 7, respondent M.W. told

Sanders that K.W. would be absent because he had a bloody nose. K.W. returned to school the

next day, and respondent M.W. stated that K.W. had a pediatrician appointment scheduled for

November 19. On November 13, Sanders e-mailed respondent M.W. about K.W.’s constant

coughing and runny nose, which was disrupting class. On November 20, respondent M.W. said

that K.W. saw a pediatrician four days prior and was taking a nasal spray. Respondent M.W. also

asked Sanders to return K.W.’s graded assignments so respondent M.W. could review them with

K.W.

¶ 40                                 6. Adjudication Ruling

¶ 41   On May 5, 2025, the court found that K.W. was neglected due to a lack of care and an

injurious environment under section 2-3(1)(a) and (b) of the Act respectively. The court found

Reed and Woodard “very credible” and “sincere,” while it found respondent M.W. less credible,

particularly in denying that he struck K.W. The court reasoned that K.W.’s outcry that respondent

M.W. hit him in the eye while intoxicated was the only plausible explanation for how K.W. arrived



                                              - 10 -
No. 1-25-0872


at school with a black eye on the morning of September 25, 2024, when he did not have a black

eye at school the day before. The court acknowledged that K.W. “changed his story” about whether

respondent M.W. hit him but explained that “a child can be hit excessively by a parent and still

love the parent.”

¶ 42   In addition, the court found that K.W. had “very serious behavior and potential serious

mental health issues.” In particular, the threats of sexual assault he made to classmates were “pretty

shocking statements coming from a nine-year-old.” Based on those threats and K.W.’s self-harm,

respondent M.W. should be “open to [K.W.] getting some help.” The court reasoned that, even if

K.W. did not need to be assessed for an individualized education program (IEP), he likely required

mental health treatment, which respondent M.W. was responsible for facilitating.

¶ 43   Finally, the court found the evidence did not establish that respondent M.W. abused K.W.

by creating “a substantial risk of physical injury *** by other than accidental means which would

be likely to cause death, disfigurement, impairment of emotional health, or loss or impairment of

any bodily function.” See id. § 2-3(2)(ii). The court explained that K.W.’s mental health issues

may be independent of “any sort of abuse or neglect that caused the injury to his hand or his eye.”

The State withdrew the allegations of excessive corporal punishment. See id. § 2-3(2)(v).

¶ 44                                  B. Disposition Hearing

¶ 45   The court immediately proceeded to a disposition hearing and took judicial notice of its

adjudication findings.

¶ 46                                    1. Eduardo Alvarado

¶ 47   DCFS child welfare specialist Eduardo Alvarado testified that he was assigned to this case

on December 12, 2024. The following day, K.W. began a partial hospitalization program but


                                                - 11 -
No. 1-25-0872


“caused an incident at the program where he was then recommended to be an inpatient. He was

discharged from the hospital on January 9, 2025.” During that hospitalization, K.W. was diagnosed

with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and disruptive mood dysregulation disorder

(DMDD). K.W. was hospitalized again from February 11, 2025, to March 14, 2025, and was

diagnosed with only DMDD. K.W. was prescribed divalproex sodium and ziprasidone. He was

“engaged in psychiatry and medical monitoring for his prescriptions” and was on a waitlist for

therapy through Chatham Family Counseling. DCFS had issued referrals for therapy, but K.W.

had not been able to attend therapy due to his “repeated moves and hospitalizations.” K.W.’s

medical care was otherwise up to date, although he needed to see a dentist and likely required

eyeglasses.

¶ 48   When DCFS initially took custody of K.W. in November 2024, it placed him with foster

mother E.G. He remained in that foster placement until his second discharge from the hospital on

March 14, 2025. DCFS then placed him with foster mother B.B. until she had a medical emergency

and could no longer care for K.W. On April 3, 2025, DCFS returned K.W. to foster care with E.G.

Alvarado visited the foster home and found it safe and appropriate, with no signs of abuse, neglect,

corporal punishment, or risk of harm to K.W., who had become attached to E.G. and referred to

her as “grandma.” Alvarado was confident that E.G. would seek appropriate medical care for any

mental health issues K.W. might have.

¶ 49   K.W. was in fourth grade at Aldridge Elementary. He did not have an IEP, but the school

was preparing an IEP case study. K.W. had several unusual incident reports during the month

before the disposition hearing. On April 1, 2025, the school suspended him for bringing a metal

rod as “self-defense,” supposedly in response to a classmate’s threats. School staff determined that



                                               - 12 -
No. 1-25-0872


no such threats occurred. On May 1, 2025, the Screening Assessment and Support Services

program evaluated K.W. based on his “acting out” in school and recommended a partial

hospitalization program. The following day, K.W. punched and broke a window at school.

Screening Assessment and Support Services evaluated K.W. at his foster home and again

recommended a partial hospitalization program. As of May 5, 2025, K.W. was on a waitlist for a

partial hospitalization program at Garfield Park Hospital.

¶ 50   Beginning in January 2025, respondent M.W. attended weekly individualized therapy

through Catholic Charities. He completed parenting training classes through Ada S. McKinley

Community Services on April 2, 2025. DCFS recommended that respondent M.W. undergo a

substance abuse assessment because, during the integrated assessment, he reported that he had

“used multiple substances in the past.” He stopped using substances in the 1990s and attended a

rehabilitation program, Alcoholics Anonymous, and Narcotics Anonymous. However, he reported

that he no longer participated in those programs and drank “occasionally throughout the week,”

including “in the presence of [K.W.] while acting as the sole caregiver.” Respondent M.W.

admitted that, on one occasion, he was under the influence when he drove K.W. to seek emergency

treatment for stomach issues. A police officer stopped respondent M.W. for speeding but allowed

him to proceed “without questioning sobriety.” Respondent M.W. refused to undergo a substance

abuse assessment because the allegations that gave rise to this case did not involve substance abuse.

¶ 51   Respondent M.W. attended weekly supervised visits with K.W. at a DCFS field office in

Harvey. Alvarado observed those visits and found that K.W. responded well to them. K.W. had “a

strong and loving relationship” with respondent M.W. and was “always very excited to meet with”




                                               - 13 -
No. 1-25-0872


him. Alvarado had no concerns regarding intoxication or inappropriate behavior by respondent

M.W. during visits.

¶ 52   Alvarado recommended that K.W. be adjudged a ward of the court “[d]ue to prior

involvement of DCFS with the family, as well as reports of [respondent M.W.] having refused

treatments and services for his son prior to DCFS involvement.” Alvarado also recommended a

permanency goal of returning home within 12 months.

¶ 53                                  2. Respondent M.W.

¶ 54   Respondent M.W. testified that he spoke to K.W. by phone twice daily for approximately

30 to 60 minutes. K.W. enjoyed those phone calls, wanted to see respondent M.W. more often,

and frequently asked when he would return home. If the court returned K.W. to respondent M.W.’s

custody, respondent M.W. would take K.W. to his partial hospitalization program, ensure that he

continued his medication regimen, take him to therapy appointments, and consult with doctors

regarding his condition and treatment. Respondent M.W. also testified that he would undergo a

substance abuse assessment if the court ordered one.

¶ 55                                      3. Exhibits

¶ 56   The State moved into evidence (1) a December 30, 2024, DCFS family service plan, (2) a

February 4, 2025, DCFS integrated assessment, and (3) a May 2, 2025, permanency hearing report.

¶ 57   The family service plan, which Alvarado drafted, was consistent with his testimony.

¶ 58   Relevant here, the integrated assessment documented Alvarado’s interview of respondent

M.W. on January 2, 2025. Respondent M.W. stated that he abused substances including alcohol,

cocaine, and heroin from his childhood until the age of 26. In December 1990, he entered

rehabilitation. Respondent M.W. was sober thereafter but began drinking wine approximately four


                                             - 14 -
No. 1-25-0872


or five years before the interview, when he retired from his job. He “drank a forty-ounce of beer

or half of a bottle of wine two to three days per week,” usually in the afternoon but occasionally

in the morning. Respondent M.W. acknowledged drinking in K.W.’s presence. K.W. did not like

when respondent M.W. drank because respondent M.W. made K.W. do his homework so

respondent M.W. could drink and fall asleep. K.W. asked respondent M.W. if he had been drinking

by saying, “Have you been to the store today?” Respondent M.W. “reported that on one occasion,

he had had a few alcoholic drinks, and [K.W.] reported that he felt sick.” Respondent M.W.

“transported [K.W.] to Comer Children’s Hospital’s Emergency Department and on the way there,

was stopped by police for speeding.” Respondent M.W. claimed that he “did not receive a ticket

and the officer did not question his sobriety.” Respondent M.W. acknowledged that “it was a poor

decision to get in the car and transport [K.W.] anywhere while under the influence.” DCFS

recommended a substance abuse assessment including “[r]andomly scheduled urine toxicology

screens.”

¶ 59   The permanency hearing report noted that respondent M.W. canceled a therapy session on

April 28, 2025, because he “appeared to be under the influence of alcohol at the start of the

session.” Respondent M.W. self-reported this incident by telephone, and “during the time of the

call [his] speech was slurred and at times rambled.” Respondent M.W. refused to undergo a

substance abuse assessment. The permanency hearing report recommended a goal of returning

home by May 31, 2026.

¶ 60                                  4. Disposition Ruling

¶ 61   The court found that respondent M.W. was unable for reasons other than financial

circumstances alone to care for, protect, train, or discipline K.W. and adjudged K.W. a ward of the



                                              - 15 -
No. 1-25-0872


court. The court explained that respondent M.W. demonstrated willingness to care for K.W. by

engaging in therapy and parent education. However, respondent M.W. still needed to undergo a

substance abuse assessment due to his admission of prior substance abuse and K.W.’s statements

that respondent M.W. hit K.W. when he drank. The court increased supervised visitation to a

minimum of twice per week, required respondent M.W. to undergo a substance abuse assessment

before allowing unsupervised visitation, and entered a permanency goal of returning home within

12 months.

¶ 62   Respondent M.W. timely appealed.

¶ 63                                      II. ANALYSIS

¶ 64   Respondent M.W. contends the trial court’s adjudication and disposition rulings were

against the manifest weight of the evidence.

¶ 65   The Act establishes procedures and criteria for determining whether to remove a minor

from his parent’s custody and whether to make that minor a ward of the court. In re Arthur H., 212

Ill. 2d 441, 462 (2004). The trial court uses a two-step process to make those decisions. In re A.P.,

2012 IL 113875, ¶ 18. First, the court holds an adjudication hearing to determine whether the minor

is abused, neglected, or dependent. Id. ¶ 19; 705 ILCS 405/2-21(1) (West 2024). If the court finds

that the minor is abused, neglected, or dependent, it holds a disposition hearing to determine

whether it is in the minor’s and the public’s best interest for the minor to become a ward of the

court. A.P., 2012 IL 113875, ¶ 21; 705 ILCS 405/2-21(2) (West 2024). A disposition order is a

final and appealable order. In re Jaron Z., 348 Ill. App. 3d 239, 253 (2004) (citing In re M.J., 314

Ill. App. 3d 649, 654-55 (2000)).

¶ 66                                  A. Adjudication Ruling


                                               - 16 -
No. 1-25-0872


¶ 67   Respondent M.W. contends the trial court’s findings of neglect due to a lack of care and

an injurious environment were against the manifest weight of the evidence.

¶ 68   At an adjudication hearing, the trial court determines whether the minor is abused,

neglected, or dependent. 705 ILCS 405/2-18(1) (West 2024). The trial court considers the minor’s

status at the time the State filed its petition. In re Kenneth D., 364 Ill. App. 3d 797, 804 (2006).

Neglect means “the failure to exercise the care that circumstances justly demand, and encompasses

both willful and unintentional disregard of parental duty.” In re Jordyn L., 2016 IL App (1st)

150956, ¶ 28. The State must prove neglect by a preponderance of the evidence, meaning that the

allegations of neglect are more probably true than untrue. Arthur H., 212 Ill. 2d at 463-64. Courts

must decide each case of neglect based on its unique facts. Id. at 463.

¶ 69   A neglected minor includes one “who is not receiving the proper or necessary support,

education as required by law, or medical or other remedial care recognized under State law as

necessary for a minor’s well-being, or other care necessary for the minor’s well-being, including

adequate food, clothing, and shelter.” 705 ILCS 405/2-3(1)(a) (West 2024). A neglected minor

also includes one “whose environment is injurious to the minor’s welfare.” Id. § 2-3(1)(b). An

“injurious environment” is “an amorphous concept that cannot be defined with particularity, but

has been interpreted to include the breach of a parent’s duty to ensure a safe and nurturing shelter

for his children.” In re Kamesha J., 364 Ill. App. 3d 785, 793 (2006).

¶ 70   We review the trial court’s findings of neglect under the manifest weight of the evidence

standard. In re Alexis H., 401 Ill. App. 3d 543, 551 (2010). We defer to the trial court’s findings

because it is in a better position to observe the witnesses and evaluate their credibility. In re Zoey

L., 2021 IL App (1st) 210063, ¶ 32. We will not disturb the trial court’s findings unless the record



                                                - 17 -
No. 1-25-0872


clearly demonstrates that the court should have reached the opposite conclusion or that the court’s

ruling is unreasonable, arbitrary, and not based on the evidence. Id. We can affirm the trial court’s

ruling on any of the bases of neglect it found. In re Abel C., 2013 IL App (2d) 130263, ¶ 28 (citing

In re Faith B., 216 Ill. 2d 1, 14 (2005)).

¶ 71                                     1. Physical Injuries

¶ 72   A minor suffering nonaccidental physical injuries while in the respondent’s care can

establish an injurious environment even if it is not certain the respondent inflicted the injuries.

In re F.S., 347 Ill. App. 3d 55, 67 (2004); In re Weber, 181 Ill. App. 3d 702, 709 (1989); In re

Simmons, 127 Ill. App. 3d 943, 949-50 (1984); In re Gomez, 53 Ill. App. 3d 353, 359 (1977).

¶ 73   The evidence established that K.W. suffered multiple visible injuries while in respondent

M.W.’s care. Most significantly, K.W. suffered a black eye between attending school on

September 24, 2024, and arriving at school the following morning on September 25, 2024.

Respondent M.W. was K.W.’s only custodial parent at the time, so it is almost certain K.W.

sustained that black eye while in respondent M.W.’s care. As the trial court correctly observed,

the evidence offered no other explanation for when or how K.W. suffered that black eye.

Photographs taken on September 25, 2024, confirm that K.W. had bruising around his right eye.

Those photographs also depict apparent injuries to K.W.’s knee, arm, and right hand. K.W. again

suffered a burn-like injury to the back of his hand in November 2024. Even if respondent M.W.

did not directly cause these injuries, they supported the finding that K.W. was exposed to an

injurious environment while in respondent M.W.’s custody. See Gomez, 53 Ill. App. 3d at 359

(minor was neglected due to an injurious environment where she repeatedly arrived to school with

severe bruises).



                                                - 18 -
No. 1-25-0872


¶ 74   Furthermore, the evidence indicated that respondent M.W. caused at least some of K.W.’s

injuries. As early as October 2021, K.W. made an outcry that respondent M.W. injured his arm

during a “who[o]ping.” K.W. repeatedly used that word to describe physically harming someone,

including the classmate he threatened on October 7, 2024. On September 25, 2024, K.W. told Reed

that, when respondent M.W. drank, he became angry and hit K.W. in the eye. During that

conversation, K.W. described how respondent M.W. had “veins that pop out” when he got mad.

This evidence bolstered the trial court’s finding that respondent M.W. subjected K.W. to an

injurious environment.

¶ 75   Respondent M.W. argues that “K.W. was injured at school,” not while he was in respondent

M.W.’s care. How K.W. sustained the injuries he suffered in the fall of 2024 was a question of

fact for the trial court to resolve. See Zoey L., 2021 IL App (1st) 210063, ¶ 32. We do not reweigh

the evidence or substitute our judgment for the trial court’s on matters of credibility. In re Jeh. R.,

2023 IL App (1st) 230006, ¶ 59. We acknowledge there was evidence of K.W. being injured in

fights at school, most notably on September 26, 2024, the day after he arrived at school with a

black eye. But K.W. being injured at school did not negate the fact that he also suffered injuries

while in respondent M.W.’s care. Therefore, the court’s finding of neglect due to an injurious

environment was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

¶ 76                           2. Failure to Seek Physical and Mental Healthcare

¶ 77   A child who does not receive appropriate medical treatment is neglected due to both a lack

of care and an injurious environment. In re Adam B., 2016 IL App (1st) 152037, ¶¶ 38-40.

¶ 78   The evidence established that respondent M.W. did not seek timely or appropriate medical

treatment for K.W.’s physical injuries. For example, respondent M.W. did not seek treatment for



                                                - 19 -
No. 1-25-0872


K.W.’s black eye on September 25, 2024, even though Woodard and Townsend advised him to do

so. It appears respondent M.W. believed that K.W. seeing doctors twice in early September 2024,

before he suffered the black eye, somehow obviated the need for him to see a doctor after suffering

the black eye. That is illogical. Respondent M.W. sought “treatment” for K.W.’s black eye more

than a month later, on October 31, 2024, and only at Townsend’s insistence. But by that point,

K.W.’s black eye had faded, and medical staff could not examine it. That was not an adequate

response to a child’s head injury. In addition, respondent M.W. ignored hospital staff’s attempt to

follow up with him on November 13, 2024.

¶ 79   The evidence also showed that respondent M.W. refused to seek treatment for K.W.’s

significant mental health needs. During the September 11, 2024, meeting, Gillespie Elementary

staff told respondent M.W. that K.W. engaged in self-harm by banging his head against desks and

walls and that he displayed alarming physical and verbal aggression toward other students.

Respondent M.W. expressed no concern about these behaviors. He also ignored school staff’s

attempt to report K.W.’s November 20, 2024, threat to sexually assault a kindergartener “just like

Diddy.” Rather than taking K.W.’s disturbing behavior seriously, respondent M.W. dismissed it

as a lack of social skills and blamed the school for not academically challenging K.W. Respondent

M.W. also refused to allow a clinical evaluation of K.W., which school staff recommended at least

twice. On the contrary, respondent M.W. insisted on advancing K.W. from fourth grade to eighth

grade even though K.W. was already below grade level in math and reading. This demand

demonstrated respondent M.W.’s unrealistic view of his son’s development and his failure to take

K.W.’s mental health issues seriously. As explained above, “[a] child who does not receive

appropriate medical evaluations or care is neglected,” and medical care includes mental health care



                                              - 20 -
No. 1-25-0872


for a minor who displays aggressive behavior. Id. ¶ 38; In re Diamond M., 2011 IL App (1st)

111184, ¶¶ 4, 32.

¶ 80   Adam B. guides our reasoning. In that case, the trial court found three brothers, Adam B.,

Joshua B., and Isaiah B., neglected due to lack of care and an injurious environment. Adam B.,

2016 IL App (1st) 152037, ¶¶ 3, 30. On appeal, the minors’ mother challenged the findings of

neglect as against the manifest weight of the evidence, and this court affirmed. Id. ¶ 1. We

explained that Joshua B. was neglected due to a lack of care and an injurious environment because

his mother did not follow up with mental health care for his aggression toward his siblings. Id.

¶¶ 38-40. We also reasoned that Isaiah B. was neglected due to lack of care and an injurious

environment because his mother did not seek prompt medical treatment for a burn he suffered;

rather, she took him to the hospital only after a daycare worker threatened to contact DCFS. Id.

¶¶ 42-44. Adam B. illustrates that a custodial parent’s delay in seeking medical treatment for

physical injuries and refusal to seek mental health care for a minor’s aggressive behavior support

findings of neglect based on both lack of care and an injurious environment. That is what happened

in this case, so this case should have the same outcome as Adam B.: affirmance of the trial court’s

findings of neglect.

¶ 81   Respondent M.W. claims that he “regularly got K.W. medical care.” That is an

overstatement. Respondent M.W. occasionally sought medical care for K.W., but not in a timely

fashion or for the reasons he most needed it. We reject respondent M.W.’s claim that the

photographs depicting K.W. on September 25, 2024, show “a healthy boy, not in any active

distress.” The photographs show a boy with a prominent black eye and what appear to be injuries




                                              - 21 -
No. 1-25-0872


to multiple limbs. K.W. was not “healthy.” He was clearly physically injured even if he was not

crying or showing signs of obvious distress in the photographs.

¶ 82    Additionally, respondent M.W. argues that he “regularly engaged with the school about

how to handle problems with K.W. there.” To some degree that is true, but respondent M.W.’s

“engagement” with school staff was rarely, if ever, productive. None of respondent M.W.’s

meetings with Gillespie Elementary staff resulted in him seeking timely physical or mental

healthcare for K.W. Respondent M.W. remained dismissive of school staff’s concerns about

K.W.’s aggressive behavior, blaming the school for not challenging him academically even though

he was already below grade level in math and reading. “Engagement” that results in no meaningful

action does not constitute adequate childcare. Accordingly, the trial court’s findings of neglect due

to lack of care and an injurious environment were not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

¶ 83                                     B. Disposition Ruling

¶ 84    Respondent M.W. also challenges the trial court’s disposition ruling as against the manifest

weight of the evidence.

¶ 85    The purpose of the disposition hearing is to determine whether it is in the best interest of

the minor and the public for the minor to become a ward of the court. A.P., 2012 IL 113875, ¶ 21;

705 ILCS 405/2-21(2) (West 2024). The trial court may make the minor a ward if it finds that the

parent at issue is unable, unwilling, or unfit, for some reason other than financial circumstances

alone, to care for, protect, train, or discipline the minor and that the health, safety, and best interests

of the minor will be jeopardized if she remains in her parent’s custody. In re Harriett L.-B., 2016

IL App (1st) 152034, ¶ 30; 705 ILCS 405/2-27(1) (West 2024). A finding on any one of the

grounds is sufficient to make the minor a ward of the court. Harriett L.-B., 2016 IL App (1st)



                                                  - 22 -
No. 1-25-0872


152034, ¶ 30. We will reverse the trial court’s disposition ruling if its factual findings are against

the manifest weight of the evidence or if the court abused its discretion by choosing an

inappropriate disposition order. Id.

¶ 86   The trial court based its disposition ruling on respondent M.W.’s failure to complete a

substance abuse assessment. That ruling was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The

facts regarding respondent M.W.’s substance abuse are undisputed. Respondent M.W. admitted

having a history of substance abuse, including alcohol abuse, dating to his childhood. Although

respondent M.W. underwent rehabilitation in 1990, he resumed drinking again in 2020 or 2021

and continued to drink throughout this case. Just one week before the disposition hearing,

respondent M.W. missed a therapy session because he was intoxicated. This evidence showed that

concerns regarding respondent M.W.’s alcohol use are well founded and are not limited to decades

past, as he suggests on appeal.

¶ 87   There is also no question that respondent M.W.’s drinking negatively affected K.W.

Respondent M.W. admitted that he drank when he was K.W.’s sole caregiver, both in the morning

and the afternoon. Respondent M.W. knew that K.W. did not like him drinking, and it appears that

respondent M.W. sometimes used drinking to avoid his caregiving responsibilities by ordering

K.W. to do his homework so he could drink and fall asleep in peace. Most concerningly,

respondent M.W. admitted that he drove K.W. to the hospital while intoxicated. The trial court

requiring respondent M.W. to undergo a substance abuse assessment was entirely reasonable.

Given K.W.’s significant healthcare needs, respondent M.W. must demonstrate that he can and

will be sober whenever K.W. is in his care.




                                                - 23 -
No. 1-25-0872


¶ 88    Respondent M.W. argues that he “completed all the services required of him, except one,”

presumably referring to the substance abuse assessment. That is true, and it supports affirmance,

not reversal, of the disposition ruling. This “ ‘court has affirmed dispositions adjudging children

wards of court where parents have completed some, but not all, recommended services.’ ” In re

A.U., 2024 IL App (1st) 231727, ¶ 79 (quoting In re Chelsea H., 2016 IL App (1st) 150560, ¶ 90).

¶ 89    Respondent M.W.’s justification for refusing the substance assessment, which is that

substance abuse was not among the State’s allegations in the petition that initiated this case, is

unpersuasive. It is not respondent M.W.’s role to decide which services are necessary or which

allegations the trial court can consider. That is the court’s responsibility, and there is nothing

improper with the court’s consideration of “evidence of parental deficiencies in the child’s

environment beyond those alleged in the petition.” See In re M.D., 2022 IL App (4th) 210288,

¶ 65.

¶ 90    Respondent M.W. also contends that he sees “K.W. weekly in supervised visits.” That is

true, and it appears those visits are going well. However, successful supervised visits do not negate

the need for a substance abuse assessment. Although respondent M.W. has been sober for his

supervised visits with K.W., the court could reasonably conclude that respondent M.W. might

drink during unsupervised visitation with or custody of K.W. In fact, respondent M.W. admitted

having done exactly that in the past.

¶ 91    Finally, respondent M.W. argues that, “since K.W. was removed from the care of

[respondent], he has done significantly worse,” citing his continuing behavioral issues at school

and mental health hospitalizations. We disagree. The fact that K.W. continues to have behavioral

issues at school does not mean he is in a worse position in foster care than he was in respondent



                                               - 24 -
No. 1-25-0872


M.W.’s custody. On the contrary, in foster care, K.W. is finally receiving the mental health care

he requires, including inpatient hospitalization, partial hospitalization, and medication.

Respondent M.W. refused to seek such treatment when he had custody of K.W. Accordingly, the

trial court’s disposition ruling was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

¶ 92                                   III. CONCLUSION

¶ 93   For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court of Cook County.

¶ 94   Affirmed.




                                               - 25 -
No. 1-25-0872



                         In re K.W., 2026 IL App (1st) 250872


Decision Under Review:      Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County, No. 24-JA-865;
                            the Hon. Jennifer Payne, Judge, presiding.


Attorneys                   Sharone R. Mitchell Jr., Public Defender, of Chicago (Rebecca
for                         A. Cohen, Assistant Public Defender, of counsel), for appellant.
Appellant:


Attorneys                   Eileen O’Neill Burke, State’s Attorney, of Chicago (John E.
for                         Nowak, Gina DiVito, and Marina C. Para, Assistant State’s
Appellee:                   Attorneys, of counsel), for the People.

                            Charles P. Golbert, Public Guardian, of Chicago (Kass A. Plain,
                            Carrie Fung, and Erin Hughes, of counsel), for other appellee.




                                         - 26 -